1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, B, and J in light of the relevant legal principles and duly admitted evidence, the lower court’s determination that the Defendants were guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the Article 109 and the lending of title.

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant AV, D, and H, an appeal is permitted only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, in the instant case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the Defendants, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Examining the reasoning for Defendant F’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s order to additionally collect KRW 5 million against the Defendant for reasons indicated in its reasoning is justifiable.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the appeal did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

4. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant G, the assertion that Defendant G was erroneous in the deliberation of sentencing factors and in the misapprehension of legal principles constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is sentenced.